that prevents the UN Security Council from resolving national conflicts in a fair and timely manner is gross imbalance in UN General Assembly Resolutions. For example, Israel has refused to accept UN Security Council mediation for this reason as in 1975 the General Assembly equated Zionism with racism (Ginsberg, 2001). Also, the presence of France in the Permanent 5 means any resolution involving Israel will likely be vetoed and Israel is opposed to the presence of the Arab League and its allies on the Security Council (Ginsberg, 2001). Thus, the national interests of the permanent 5 and imbalances in the UN Security Council have prevented the international body from resolving and acting decisively in the case of the Syrian conflict. Another problem with the UN is that it struggles to balance its dual purpose. The two purposes of the UN are that, firstly, it is a multilateral organisation that aims to assume international responsibility and alleviate human suffering but, also, it allows for the expression and protection of national interests (Clements, 2008). However, the protection of national interests is often seen as more important than the UN’s responsibility to protect weaker nations. The promotion of national interests is enshrined in the UN Charter’s principle of non-interference. Article II Part 7 of the Charter states that ‘nothing contained in the present charter shall authorise the United Nations to interfere in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state’ (Clements, 2008: 3). The larger powers, the permanent 5 and those aspiring to join them, have traditionally interpreted this mandate to mean that the UN should not obstruct the assertion of power and natural interests, expect in extreme circumstances (Clements, 2008). It has been argued that, since its foundation, the UN Security Council has maintained and promoted the interests of the most powerful nations over those of the rest through the veto process (Schaaf, 2013). As a result, the UN has been criticised on the basis that it prioritises representing the interests of certain nations over those of others. Thus, granting stronger nations the power of veto means that the interests of these countries can never be overridden (Schaaf, 2013). It is clear that such a position offers strong, powerful nations certain long-term advantages. It has been said that: For a hegemon, multilateral organisations offer a medium through which it can more easily fulfil its objectives, provided others can be persuaded to go along (Glen, 2009: 311). This idea reflects the view that, according to hegemony theory, the construction of an >